Gratifying the senses but not the sense

The newspapers went to town with the Ng Boon Gay sex scandal. Predictably. But from a reading of all the English newspapers, I think BT had the best report. Because it “joined the issues’’. So ST and TNP went with all the salacious details, with not very much on what the prosecution and defence locked horns over. Today was too general.

I guess titillating reading always sells but I got quite jaded with all the details of carparks and intimate encounters in enclosed spaces. My feelings go out entirely to Ng’s wife and Sue’s absent husband. I really hope the prosecution has a good case or it would merely have afforded the public a good sexy scandal that would irreparably damage all the parties concerned – with nought to show for it…

Anyway, looks like the court thinks Ng has a case to answer, going by the judge’s brief remarks that there is “some evidence, not inherently incredible, that satisfies each of the elements in all four charges’’. I wish people won’t use double negatives…what’s “inherently’’ incredible anyway?

The reason I liked BT’s reporting is because it told me things the others don’t have. Like how the prosecution took issue with the defence submission that the oral sex was not “completed’’ and hence, no “gratification’’ occurred. It was more like “frustration’’. You know, I always thought defence counsel was being facetious when he made the point before the trial broke…Seems it’s deadly serious.
I had to read both ST and BT for the works though.

Defence: She didn’t complete it. So there was no gratification. Instead there was frustration.
Prosecution (who quotes from Oxford dictionary): Gratification isn’t linked with satisfaction. (this is based on ST reporting)
Defence: If she didn’t complete it, it shows she never expected something in return. (this is based on BT reporting)

BT also reported a “celebratory’’ lunch by Sue for Ng to toast some contracts she won with CNB and NCS. After which Ng propositioned her. The prosecution said this showed a link between sex and contracts. Defence said this was a “distinct shift’’ from prosecution position that there was no need for there to be link to say that Ng is guilty of corruption.
BT also reported prosecution talking about Sue rejecting clandestine rendezvous, including a trip to Macau. Ng said that he was the one who turned the trip down.

The prosecution also referred to other official witnesses who said that Ng should have declared conflict of interest and recused himself from decision making. Defence thinks that’s making quite a leap from non-disclosure to corrupt intent.

Anyway, what am I doing??? Go buy BT.

A loyal wife

I feel so sorry for the wife of Ng Boon Gay. Fancy having to listen to what her husband supposedly did to another woman. If Ng Boon Gay doesn’t appreciate having his wife standing by him so loyally, he isn’t a man at all. In fact, I hope he comes to court with his face scratched.
Am I sorry for Cecilia Sue? Yes, in the sense that she has to say in public what is better left private. But then again, there’s this voice which asks: Could she have said no, even if she didn’t want to file a police report which she claims no one will believe? Four times being “coerced’’ into performing oral sex seems a bit much, and that’s not counting the other times that the prosecution isn’t referring to as charges. I suppose I shouldn’t under-estimate the hold that a powerful man would have against a woman, or even deny that power can be charismatic. But Sue seems no wilting wallflower. She is a high-flier who could have given him the finger if she chose. And she didn’t say anything about Ng threatening to hurt her business if she didn’t do what he wanted. Looks like a consensual friend with benefits relationship which has been exposed.
I wonder if the prosecution did right in charging Ng under this huge ambit of “corruption’’. I have a problem connecting this to what looks like a sordid affair that would be painful for all parties concerned – but not necessarily criminal. Anyway, that’s the job of the defence.
My best wishes to Mrs Ng.

New rules for civil servants

This whole corrupt civil servants business has got me thinking that the Civil Service should amend its instructional manual and make it more specific.
a. Do not go for business lunches. Eat in the staff canteen. And return your tray.
b. Don’t play golf. You don’t know which business contact you might meet.
c. Don’t go on holidays with a member of the opposite sex who is not your spouse.
d. If you do need sex, go to a prostitute. Remember to pay her. And check her IC
e. That diary you’re using, is it ours?
f. Re-screen your Facebook friends. Unfriend those who have any business with you.
g. While you are at it, screen out PAP activists – you don’t know when they will appear at a National Conversation forum.
h. Don’t invite relatives who are businessmen for Chinese New Year. This is to avoid you having to receive their oranges.
i. Does your work have anything to do with procurement? Ask for a transfer.
j. Ditch your Brompton bike.

In the dock

The case of the philandering professor
So Tey Tsun Hang’s case has been postponed to mid-December because the courts agreed that he needed time to prepare. Good for Tey. Seems to me he does need the stuff he asked for, like the transcripts of the students he was said to have “upgraded’’. And those medical reports on the day of his CPIB interrogation. Seems that the former district judge didn’t realise he had to apply to the district judge for the kind of information he wanted. Guess he will get it right this time. This case is too juicy for words. Who are the four other ex-students (including a man) besides the one in the case cited? And what about those allegations that he confessed under duress, in his hospital garb, while on psychoactive drugs and in a “mentally altered state’’? Doesn’t look good for the CPIB’s interrogation techniques. I mean, I know an interrogation isn’t supposed to be comfortable…but….?

The case of the woman in love
In love – or not? That’s what Cecilia Sue seemed to have told investigators of the CNB director’s case. But she also contradicted herself as well when she said Ng Boon Gay had helped her secure a contract. The whole case is puzzling with the prosecutor acknowledging that Ng didn’t interfere in the procurement process. So it seems a case of sexual harassment? That he forced her into having sex or she was “compelled’’to do so because she was afraid of pissing off this very important man? And she was compelled to do so only four times despite a relationship that stretched back to 2009? I tend to agree with defence lawyer Tan Chee Meng description of the prosecution taking a blunderbuss approach. How is Ng supposed to prove his innocence like this? Divorce his wife and marry the woman?

The case of the two other women
So the prosecution is proceeding with one charge and one woman first against the SCDF chief. I read ST and had to be wondering why the other two women who have been publicly named weren’t getting hauled up too. ST reported that the charges against them had been “stood down’’ – not withdrawn. I wish journalists would realised not all readers would understand what this phrase means and why this happened. Today reported that it was probably because they wanted to get the clearest cut charge out of the way first so things won’t get complicated. Then the other women would be grilled too. Phew! For a moment there, I thought everyone has done those women a big injustice – I mean they’ve been named and all that….

The case of the “biased’’ doctors
This was in The Sunday Times. It’s about how the courts ticked off the Singapore Medical Council for “picking on’’ (my words) one aesthetic doctor even though guidelines on aesthetic medicine hadn’t even been issued. What about the rest of the doctors who practise beauty medicine then? The interesting thing is that the charges against the doctor was brought to the SMC’s attention by the Ministry of Health. Sort of begs the question why MOH accused her, and only her, of practising non-evidence based medicine in November 2007, before those guidelines were introduced the following year. And the SMC sat in judgement only LAST YEAR. By the way, wasn’t the SMC supposed to have changed its disciplinary processes in the meantime? By getting a lawyer on board the panel or something? Didn’t work?

A moral mess

What in heaven’s name is happening to our doctors, teachers, lawyers and civil servants? Everyday, we’re reading about these professionals being accused of or pleading guilty to a whole barrage of crimes: having sex with patients, underaged girls, students in return for doing favours or just for kicks; prescribing illegal stuff; favouring supposed friends; sleeping on the job; being loco etc. And I am not even talking  about religious leaders aka known as the City Harvest people who can afford high-priced Senior Counsels.

Okay, I don’t care who defends who – and some have yet to be proven guilty. And yes, they make for great reading and you start thinking, hey, maybe this is a sign that, never mind the Woffles Wu puzzle, the rich and famous do NOT get away with doing illegal stuff.

Except that, there seems to be too many of them….Or maybe it’s just a coincidence that everything is happening in a clump.

What has happened to the ethical codes that underpin all these professions? What are their leaders doing about imbueing them in the members? I don’t think it’s enough to say, we caught the bad hats, we weeded them out and you shouldn’t tar all of us with the same brush. Some introspection is surely expected.

Of course, there would need to be system changes, especially in the civil service. You’ve got a foreign service officer accused of fraud and now the NParks guy who bought expensive bikes. And every year, we’ve got to read reports from the Public Accounts Committee, Accountant-General etc lambasting some agency or other over its sloppy procurement procedures. I believe some suggestions were made to improve this process earlier this year. Has it been done? Is it an improvement over the Finance ministry’s explanation about how those Bromption bikes were bought?

With so much de-moral-ising news, I always find the Bouquet column in ST’s Forum Page a joy to read. It’s short, snappy – and grateful. People remembering to thank others for doing nice things. I wish there were more of them to read to balance the daily diet.

PS. ST named the NUS law professor for his supposed sex-for-grades stunt although he hasn’t been charged. I suppose this puts it one up on TNP which first broke the story? Can’t  be. I guess the stable of newspapers have different standards on naming people….Hmmm